Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Machiavelli]

Really for someone who thought DNA was a protein after six years of discussing why the DNA testing was unreliable I would be careful about using technical terms such as allele and haplotype; I might call you out and ask you to explain what a Y haplotype was and why it cannot identify an individual by definition. There certainly are alleles on the Y chromosome.

It cannot identify one specific individual because the combination belongs to the Y chromosome alone; haplotype by definition is a combination that is inherited together from the ascendant (mother of father). Therefore there is at least one line of ascendants possessing the same sequence.

 

[Grinder]

No. It is not that common, this only happened on some cases with extreme media exposure. It's clearly a kind of media effect. When you feel that your words have fallen into the spotlight (as it happened to Knox after her statement against Lumumba) and you know that your words are going to obtain wide resonance among public and be relevant to the case, writing may become an irresistible temptation.

Right, it was part of her their master plan. She was locked up and didn't have full access to the media. You think she was looking for attention while throwing caution to the wind. Idiotic.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) I think that in most of the world he wouldn't be considered a good witness just based on getting the costumes and buses wrong. (...)

I think rather than culture there is also a problem with precise knowledge of details. There isn't a single statement of Curatolo about costumes, and there is actually no evidence he got the buses wrong (there is just an unproven defence claim).

 

[acbytesla]

What?? In the U.S. we don't call our elected President the "sovereign." And no, the executive branch cannot override our Constitution. Lawyers would go to court and argue whether and how particular provisions do or do not apply in a specific matter, but multiple levels of federal judges, including the Supreme Court, make the decision, not the executive branch. Even the President can't make you testify against yourself.

This is so true, but this is about extradition and a treaty with another country and the treaty specifically puts the State Department which is in the Executive Branch in charge of this.

Extradition of Amanda Knox is both a very very complicated issue with a limited amount of case law. It involves politics and it also involves the judiciary. The Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court could easily prevent the extradition of Amanda and so can the President. In fact the President can stop the extradition of Amanda Knox for no reason if he pleases. He doesn't have to prove anything.

However the Ninth Circuit court could prevent extradition for some reason, probable cause, double jeopardy and they can be reversed by the US Supreme Court.

The law on this doesn't support Amanda Knox's case as well as I would hope, but there is enough fog in the case that anything goes. It all depends on the 9th Circuit Court judge in Seattle. Double jeopardy, the facts of the case, probable cause and even due process may be reasons to reject extradition.

 

[Grinder]

I think rather than culture there is also a problem with precise knowledge of details. There isn't a single statement of Curatolo about costumes, and there is actually no evidence he got the buses wrong (there is just an unproven defence claim).

Well the disco operators came to court and said they weren't running. If they were running then the time of around midnight was wrong because the buses leave before that and therefore the judge had to move the time to 11:30. Regardless his testimony if actually believed leaves no time for the murder before 11:45 which was long after she was dead.

What did he precisely say? The young people were there with masks on or faces painted?

 

[Dan O.]

It's like she has not been wised up. After 6 years, 4 of them in jail.

If she hadn't written about what happened in the interrogation we would never know. Words put on paper which could be proved or disproved by simply replaying the tapes of that evening. She had no way of knowing that those tapes would remain hidden. And every thing to lose if the tapes proved she was lying. We should be bound by this to believe that her written account is the factual record of that evening.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-

FROM: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-Kerchers-family-demand-Knox-sent-Italy.html

"Mr Kercher, who was in Florence for the ruling, said: 'Ultimately somebody who is found guilty for murder, whoever they are, should be punished... '"

-----
I wonder if Mr. Kercher knows or even realizes Rudy will be getting out soon. Interesting that he very rarely, if ever, mentions Rudy who has more evidence against him for the murder than the combined evidence they have against all the other people who they arrested for this murder. It makes me wonder what exactly their agenda is.

Also, I could tell the slant on this article by the two creepy looking photos of Amanda, one of Raffaele and Meredith, but none of Rudy who isn't even mentioned until the last sentence. Very odd indeed,

d

-

Oh come on what is Lyle Kercher supposed to do about the lenient penal system in Italy?

 

[christianahannah]

No. It is not that common, this only happened on some cases with extreme media exposure. It's clearly a kind of media effect. When you feel that your words have fallen into the spotlight (as it happened to Knox after her statement against Lumumba) and you know that your words are going to obtain wide resonance among public and be relevant to the case, writing may become an irresistible temptation.

Would they (Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy) have started these writings on advice of their attorneys?

 

[Grinder]

This is so true, but this is about extradition and a treaty with another country and the treaty specifically puts the State Department which is in the Executive Branch in charge of this.

Extradition of Amanda Knox is both a very very complicated issue with a limited amount of case law. It involves politics and it also involves the judiciary. The Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court could easily prevent the extradition of Amanda and so can the President. In fact the President can stop the extradition of Amanda Knox for no reason if he pleases. He doesn't have to prove anything.

However the Ninth Circuit court could prevent extradition for some reason, probable cause, double jeopardy and they can be reversed by the US Supreme Court.

The law on this doesn't support Amanda Knox's case as well as I would hope, but there is enough fog in the case that anything goes. It all depends on the 9th Circuit Court judge in Seattle. Double jeopardy, the facts of the case, probable cause and even due process may be reasons to reject extradition.

Double jeopardy will not be the winning argument. The treaty was made with full knowledge of the Italian system. It has been tried before and lost.

Could you provide a cite that the court can prevent extradition?

 

[anglolawyer]

If she hadn't written about what happened in the interrogation we would never know. Words put on paper which could be proved or disproved by simply replaying the tapes of that evening. She had no way of knowing that those tapes would remain hidden. And every thing to lose if the tapes proved she was lying. We should be bound by this to believe that her written account is the factual record of that evening.

This does not address what I was saying. She remains detached from reality, not comprehending her situation, even now.

 

[Machiavelli]

Right, it was part of her their master plan. She was locked up and didn't have full access to the media. You think she was looking for attention while throwing caution to the wind. Idiotic.

All Knox always wanted was to tell a story someone would believe. What she expressed from the very beginning was the need that "they" believed her. If not the police, someone else.
Bear in mind her e-mail home of Nov. 4. Bear in mind what she did. She sent this e-mail "for everyone" because she wanted people to listen to "her" story. She violated the police request of talking about her recollection of facts, they asked to do one thing and she did the opposite thing. She lied from the first line of her e-mail, as she asked the recipients to not talk about it because that could have jeopardized the investigation, and sent the letter to 25 people meaning she was doing exactly what she was asking other people not to do. Isn't that expressing a desire to talk to people about his version at the cost throwing caution to the wind? For what? If not to have her story and her words get through to others?

 

[christianahannah]

-

FROM: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-Kerchers-family-demand-Knox-sent-Italy.html

"Mr Kercher, who was in Florence for the ruling, said: 'Ultimately somebody who is found guilty for murder, whoever they are, should be punished... '"

-----
I wonder if Mr. Kercher knows or even realizes Rudy will be getting out soon. Interesting that he very rarely, if ever, mentions Rudy who has more evidence against him for the murder than the combined evidence they have against all the other people who they arrested for this murder. It makes me wonder what exactly their agenda is.

Also, I could tell the slant on this article by the two creepy looking photos of Amanda, one of Raffaele and Meredith, but none of Rudy who isn't even mentioned until the last sentence. Very odd indeed,

d

-

Well the family does have a judgment against Rudy for monetary damages of a rather sizable sum which should follow him (Rudy) the rest of his days. Hopefully he won't be able to profit from Meredith's murder.

I imagine why you don't hear much from the family concerning Rudy is because Rudy's trial is over and he is in prison serving his time. They may not be happy how the system plays out (fast track trial sentence) but there was a judgment against Rudy, both criminal and civil so there is no denying his role in Meredith's murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

Would they (Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy) have started these writings on advice of their attorneys?

No, that would have been crazy. Raffaele and Rudy started their writings because of the media attention on Knox's statement and on Sollecito's words admitting he had lied ("ho raccontato un sacco di cazzate") and his new version withdrawing her alibi.

 

[Dan O.]

I think rather than culture there is also a problem with precise knowledge of details. There isn't a single statement of Curatolo about costumes, and there is actually no evidence he got the buses wrong (there is just an unproven defence claim).

Pure revisionist crap Machiavelli.

 

[moodstream]

First of all her "handwritten note" was written within a few hours of the "confession" and seems entirely believable and easily misinterpreted by non-native english speakers.

Secondly, if she is guilty, it just makes absolutely no sense at all for her to accuse Lumumba, because she would have known he wasn't there. The confession and accusation makes absolutely no sense if she was guilty. The confession itself notes she continuously shakes her head while "saying" these things, another sign she doesn't believe what she is saying.

Really the only logical conclusion is she was railroaded. The lack of recording or transcripts of the interrogation makes it all the more suspicious.

Also, because she was supposed to work that night, and Lumumba canceled her shift because it was slow, she would know he was at the cafe and also know he had a verifiable alibi.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Double jeopardy will not be the winning argument. The treaty was made with full knowledge of the Italian system. It has been tried before and lost.

Could you provide a cite that the court can prevent extradition?

Grinder, to be clear, I mostly agree with you. I also don't think a double jeopardy argument would actually work. That being said, it is still possible. I have researched it (I did post cases from other circuits/districts earlier) and neither the federal district court for the Western District of Washington nor the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled on this specific issue. There are really not many cases that address this kind of situation. There is at least room for argument. Again, not likely to win, but you can't guarantee it's an automatic loser of an argument.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh come on what is Lyle Kercher supposed to do about the lenient penal system in Italy?

Gee. Maybe he could use his bully pulpit to say something like: I think the guy who killed and raped by sister should go to jail for more then 6 years.

That would be more useful than his promotion of an intentional miscarriage of justice.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Can someone on the "innocent" side briefly explain their answer to the "changed their alibis 9 times" claim from the "guilty" side? Evidence against Knox on this seems weak, but it doesn't for Sollecito?

Judge Matteini, who confirmed the arrests on Nov. 7 or 8 2007, wrote up a summary of the case as it stood at that date. Here is what she wrote, as translated by the UK Telegraph:

Knox Amanda was heard for the first time on 2 November 2007 and on that occasion said she had seen Meredith at 1pm at the apartment that the aforementioned occupied, where she found her together with her boyfriend Sollecito Raffaele, and that she saw her leave at around 1500 to 1600 but did not know where she was going, and that she stayed with Sollecito until 1700, and that they went to his apartment, where they spent the whole night.

And that she returned to the apartment in Via della Pergola 7 at 1100 on the successive morning and had found the door open, that she tried to call the housemates but had no response, and that she was in one of the two bathrooms when she found traces of blood which she did not worry about cleaning, and to have noticed that in the other bathroom the water was full of faeces, and that she was astonished by did not try to clean it, and that she left the apartment at 11.30, closing the front door and locking it, and that she went back to Sollecito's apartment […]

And that she had tried to contact Meredith but without any result, and that she went back to the apartment in Via della Pergola in the company of Sollecito and that she noticed that the glass of a window was broken, and that she discovered the door of the room occupied by Meredith was locked and that she decided to call the Carabinieri after Sollecito called his sister to ask what they should do.

On the same date, Sollecito Raffaele was interview, who completely confirmed Knox's statement with the only difference being that he found the water in the toilet clean, instead of what the girl had said.

Emphasis is mine.

They both told the same, consistent story from the time they were first questioned until the night of Nov. 5 when the cops turned up the heat, at which point they both changed their stories such that Raffaele incriminated Amanda, and Amanda incriminated herself and Lumumba.

They reverted to their original stories when they were given access to lawyers.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Oh come on what is Lyle Kercher supposed to do about the lenient penal system in Italy?

-

I guess the name Maresca means nothing to you?

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Well the disco operators came to court and said they weren't running. If they were running then the time of around midnight was wrong because the buses leave before that and therefore the judge had to move the time to 11:30. Regardless his testimony if actually believed leaves no time for the murder before 11:45 which was long after she was dead.

What did he precisely say? The young people were there with masks on or faces painted?

No costumes nor masks. You can read his testimonies. Disco operators: from which discos? There are about 20 discos around Perugia that relied on night bus services, and there was a student-operated service. Moreover, we all know the Perugia disco operators follow unofficial/undeclared opening schedules to evade taxes.